Officials travel armed. When a contingent of our officials visits any
other country, they bring armed personnel in classic right-to-bear-arms
manner. Life is dangerous and the ability to protect yourself is a
reasonable and prudent thing, a fundamental human right of existence, a
moral imperative. So they go armed. It's only rational. Hillary and
similar bring along enough firepower that if some of their group go
one way while some head off in another, they're both covered.

The same is true in reverse. When an ambassador from Trashcanistan
comes to the United States, discreetly armed bodyguards accompany the
party at all times, "laws to the contrary notwithstanding." That's
lawyer-speak for "their right to carry supersedes any other rules,"
or in plainer English, "We're above those laws." The ambassador might
decide to personally carry too. I'm guessing Hillary does not.

There's this whole "second system" of gun possession and carry here
domestically, another layer of rules on top of the common ones you must
follow, operating quietly with people in the know cooperating.

Where are the laws for this exception to every gun law on the
U.S. books? How does this special class of people exempt themselves
from laws controlling the rest of us?

No one is harmed by their exemption. In fact, community safety
increases, because assaults on those armed people are naturally
deterred, even defensible if needed. Should we the people maybe have
Diplomatic Carry too? Is a diplomat's life truly at more riskor worth
morethan any "commoner"? How does this comply with equal protection
under the law?

Local authorities understand implicitly that these armed folks aren't
going to randomly shoot people, or settle arguments with gunfire, the
same as you and me when we're armed. They enjoy proper respect (even if
they come from regimes that don't deserve it). We on the other hand have
rights denied haphazardly, even with Constitutional Carry. As good as it
is, Constitutional Carry is not enough.

Americans need and deserve the next step, Diplomatic Carry.

The body politic moves slowly. After several decades of experience,
police nationwide understand and operate just fine within a framework of
millions of people traveling armed. As the number of people carrying arms
for crime control has increased, assaultive crimes have decreased. The
media generally calls this "a surprising decrease in crime that has the
experts baffled." All these people are walking around armed, expressly
to forestall crime, and the media can't understand why crime has dropped.
But I digress.

Oh sure, armed forces within the U.S.from local police to
secretive agents our government is now filled withkeep a watchful
eye on the armed diplomats, as well they should. They also provide
backup in the event of need. The same as for us.

But in the big picture, diplomats have less need for an ever-present
armed escort than the public. A rare few diplomats face death at the
hands of the mobs. Thousands of citizens are murdered each year. Who
needs protection more?

The freedom of Diplomatic Carry, a concept many of us can easily
grasp, is mind boggling to the great unwashed. So insulated from any
truth about firearms, victims of television and the government-run
school system, they have imbedded ignorance that is hard to shake.
Destructively misinformed kids and teachers compound the problem. I
digress again.

Now, Diplomatic Carry is not going to happen overnight. Many
voices will be raised in objection to such freedom. And unfortunately,
some opposition will come from people who consider themselves firearms
enthusiasts. Establishing everyone's uninfringed freedom to carry is
scary, at least to some. But that's OK. Real freedom is a house high
on a hill.

Diplomatic Carry is a paradigm shift. A window into a world that
could be, and ought to be, a lofty goal. Your right to your life and
its protection cannot morally be denied. It is denied only by force,
and there is only one viable countermeasure to force unfortunately,
in this best of all possible worlds, and that's countervailing force.
I don't like it, but there it is.

Diplomatic Carry is a new level of autonomy, of personal
sovereignty. It raises the bar. In this country, the people are the
sovereigns and the government is the servant. How do you justify the
servants carrying arms if the masters cannot?The only consistent
position for free people to take is this:

Anything short of Diplomatic Carry is infringement.

I am in the process of dissecting the legal framework that enables
Diplomatic Carry, and modeling an approach for extending those principles
to the public. Conceptually this is sound. Pragmatically it is an uphill
climb, but as Americans we know that anything can be climbed. I'll have
early results soon in my blog, PageNine.org. Sign up to stay informed.